WPC  2;hdpj޹BzEΧJiy{Ք83C n,+;;V[wH/̗H֊j",^,k`090 nRd-ݛ7q ЊUUB2 k|Tu[>jtY96#H%TZ#UN % 0: ZC ^ w 4   m Z NC 0E E ? 0D/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Bs Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEy/K;EJ!PCsg<3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(Y(2X$ !USUS.,   XX      0   5 X$USUS., XX      1    _ApplicantsbriefcitestotheregulationsandcasesofanotherFederalagency,whichdonotapplyinDOHA  proceedings. t (#$  0   d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF;GuidelineE  DIGEST:Wefindnothingintherecord,orinApplicantsappealbrief,toshoworintimatethat  Applicantwasdeniedafairopportunitytopresenthiscaseformitigation.Adversedecision t affirmed. ` _CASENO_:1502955.a1 8  DATE:09/15/2017  `    `     h      p DATE:September15,2017  8  .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdEgA   InRe:       ApplicantforSecurityClearance / AY) xdEgA W )   )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \  H pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1502955 \"  H# .؉7r. \XXp  #    APPEALBOARDDECISION  $ APPEARANCES '  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  X ) JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel 0!*  FORAPPLICANT  "0, ShaneC._Brengle_,Esq.#XX%&# #-     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On @(#2 November17,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisfor ,)|$3 thatdecision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)andGuideline *h%4 E(PersonalConduct)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended) +T&5 (Directive).Applicantrequestedadecisiononthewrittenrecord.OnMay12,2017,after +@'6 consideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudge ,,(7 JenniferI.GoldsteindeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicantappealed -)8 pursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30.    Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whetherApplicantwasdenieddueprocess  andwhethertheJudgesadversedecisionwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.TheJudges t favorablefindingsunderGuidelineEarenotatissueinthisappeal.Consistentwiththefollowing, ` weaffirm. L    TheJudgesFindingsofFact  $ t   TheJudgemadethefollowingfindingspertinenttotheissuesraisedonappeal:Applicant  L  servedinthemilitaryfrom1992until2012.Divorcedandremarried,hehasachildandtwo  8  stepchildren.Applicants_SOR_Ԁlistsnumerouscollectionand/orchargedoffaccounts.Althoughhe $  claimedtohaveresolvedoneofthem,hedidnotprovidecorroboration.Applicantsubmittedno   evidenceofactionstakentopayhisdebts,nordidheprovideevidenceofabudget,earnings,or   financialcounseling.     TheJudgesAnalysis  p   ThoughnotingevidencethatApplicantattributedhisfinancialproblemstohisexwifeand H theirdivorce,hedidnotshowthathehadactedresponsiblyinregardtothismisfortune.TheJudge 4 reiteratedthatApplicanthadnotshownevidenceoffinancialcounseling,norhadheprovideda  p reasontodisputethelegitimacyofanyofhisdebts.ShestatedthatApplicantsfailuretopayhis  \ debtsdemonstratesalackofrehabilitation. H   Discussion      Applicantcontendsthathewasdenieddueprocess. #  1      ׀Hestatesthathedidnothaveenough  timetorespondtotheallegations;thathisdeploymentimpairedhisabilitytosubmitevidencein  mitigation;andthathedidnothavethesameopportunitiesavailable_to___ԀApplicantswhohavechosen  ahearing.Inmakinghisarguments,Applicantassertsmattersfromoutsidetherecord.Weare l precludedfromconsideringnewevidenceonappeal.However,wewillconsidersuchevidenceon X  thresholdissuessuchasdueprocessorjurisdiction.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1504003at2(App. D! Bd.May25,2017). 0"    Wefindnothingintherecord,orinApplicantsappealbrief,toshoworintimatethat $X" Applicantwasdeniedafairopportunitytopresenthiscaseformitigation.AsDepartmentCounsel $D # arguesintheReplyBrief,thereisnoapparentreasonthatApplicantcouldnothavechosenahearing, %0!$ whetherbyvideoteleconferenceorinpersonwhenbackintheU.S.Moreover,thereisnothingin &"% therecordtoshowthatApplicantsoughtadditionaltimefromtheJudgeinwhichtoobtainand '#& presentmitigatingevidenceorthatheaddressedanyconcernstohisFacilitySecurityOfficerorother (#' officials.AlthoughitmaynotbesurprisingthatApplicantisdispleasedwiththeJudgesdecision )$( inhiscase,wefindnoreasontobelievethattheadversedecisionresultedfromadenialofthedue  processthattheDirectiveaffords.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.000250at3(App.Bd.Feb.13,2001).    ThebalanceofApplicantsbriefisachallengetotheJudgesweighingoftheevidence.He t presentsnewevidenceinmitigation,whichwecannotconsider.DirectiveE3.1.29.Applicants ` argumentsarenotsufficienttoshowthattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthatwas L  arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1508842at3(App.Bd.Feb.14, 8  2017). $ t   TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe  L  decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay  8  begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department $  oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Encl.2,App.A2(b): Any   doubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavor   ofthenationalsecurity.   @( Order  @-(, Ї  TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .     `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ d    `     h   Michael_Raanan_ P     `     h   AdministrativeJudge <     `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard ( x    `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody (     `     h   JamesE.Moody      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard      `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__ L    `     h   JamesF.Duffy 8    `     h   AdministrativeJudge $t    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___